The Controversy of Zion

by Douglas Reed

p. 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282

Chapter 32


The World Revolution Again

The simultaneous triumphs of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of their original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy … rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West.


1917 gave proof of Disraeli's dictum about the revolution in its 1848 phase, when he said that Jews headed “every one” of the secret societies and aimed to destroy Christianity. The controlling group that emerged in 1917 was so preponderantly Jewish that it may be called Jewish. The nature of the instigating force then became a matter of historical fact, not of further polemical debate. It was further identified by its deeds: the character of its earliest enactments, a symbolic mockery of Christianity, and a special mark of authorship deliberately given to the murder of the monarch. All these bore the traits of a Talmudic vengeance.


In the forty years that have passed great efforts have been made to suppress public knowledge of this fact, which has been conclusively established, by non-sequential rebukes to any who claim to discuss history. For instance, in the 1950's an able (and deservedly respected) Jewish writer in America, Mr. George Sokolsky, in criticizing a book previously cited wrote, “It is impossible to read it without reaching the conclusion that Professor Beaty seeks to prove that Communism is a Jewish movement.” In respect of the leadership it was that for a long period before 1917 (as to later and the present situation, subsequent chapters will look at the evidence). It was not a conspiracy of all Jews, but neither were the French revolution, Fascism and National Socialism conspiracies of all Frenchmen, Italians or Germans. The organizing force and the leadership were drawn from the Talmudic-controlled Jewish areas of Russia, and in that sense Communism was demonstrably Eastern Jewish.


As to the purposes revealed when the revolution struck in 1917, these showed that it was not episodic or spontaneous but the third “eruption” of the organization first revealed through Weishaupt. The two main features reappeared: the attack on all legitimate government of any kind whatsoever and on religion. Since 1917 the world-revolution has had to cast aside the earlier pretence of being directed only against “kings” or the political power of priests.


One authority of that period knew and stated this. In the tradition of Edmund Burke and John Robison, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton and Disraeli, Mr. Winston Churchill wrote:


“It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti-Christ were designed to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and




mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical From the days of ‘Spartacus' Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others.”


This is the last candid statement (discoverable by me) from a leading public man on this question. After it the ban on public discussion came down and the great silence ensued, which continues to this day. In 1953 Mr. Churchill refused permission (requisite under English law) for a photostat to be made of this article (Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920), without saying why.


The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.

At the time, the facts were available. The British Government's White Paper of 1919 (Russia, No. 1, a Collection of Reports on Bolshevism) quoted the report sent to Mr. Balfour in London in 1918 by the Netherlands Minister at Saint Petersburg, M. Oudendyke: “Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews, who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.” The United States Ambassador, Mr. David R. Francis, reported similarly: “The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.” M. Oudendyke's report was deleted from later editions of the British official publication and all such authentic documents of that period are now difficult to obtain. Fortunately for the student, one witness preserved the official record.




This was Mr. Robert Wilton, correspondent of the London Times, who experienced the Bolshevik revolution. The French edition of his book included the official Bolshevik lists of the membership of the ruling revolutionary bodies (they were omitted from the English edition).


These records show that the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party, which wielded the supreme power, contained 3 Russians (including Lenin) and 9 Jews. The next body in importance, the Central Committee of the Executive Commission (or secret police) comprized 42 Jews and 19 Russians, Letts, Georgians and others. The Council of People's Commissars consisted of 17 Jews and five others. The Moscow Che-ka (secret police) was formed of 23 Jews and 13 others. Among the names of 556 high officials of the Bolshevik state officially published in 1918-1919, were 458 Jews and 108 others. Among the central committees of small, supposedly “Socialist” or other non-Communist parties (during that early period the semblance of “opposition” was permitted, to beguile the masses, accustomed under the Czar to opposition parties) were 55 Jews and 6 others. All the names are given in the original documents reproduced by Mr. Wilton. (In parentheses, the composition of the two short-lived Bolshevik governments outside Russia in 1918-1919, namely those of Hungary and Bavaria, was similar).


Mr. Wilton made a great and thankless effort to tell newspaper readers what went on in Russia (broken, he survived only a few years and died in his fifties). He did hot choose the task of reporting the most momentous event that ever came in any journalist's path of duty; it devolved on him. Educated in Russia, he knew the country and its language perfectly, and was held in high esteem by the Russians and the British Embassy alike. He watched the rioting from the window of The Times office, adjoining the Prefecture where the ministers of the collapsing regime took refuge. Between the advent of the Kerensky government in the spring of 1917 and the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in November 1917, his duty was to report an entirely new phenomenon in world affairs: the rise of a Jewish regime to despotic supremacy in Russia and to overt control of the world-revolution. At that moment he was made to realize that he would not be allowed faithfully to report the fact.


The secret story is told, with surprising candour, in the Official History of his paper, The Times, published in 1952. It shows the hidden mechanism which operated, as early as 1917, to prevent the truth about the revolution reaching the peoples of the West.


This volume pays tribute to the quality of Mr. Wilton's reporting, and his standing in Russia, before 1917. Then the tone of the references to him abruptly changes. Mr. Wilton's early warnings of what was to come in 1917, says the book, did not at once affect the policy of the paper, partly because their writer did not command full confidence.”


Why, if his earlier work and reputation were so good? The reason transpires.




The narrative continues that Mr. Wilton began to complain about the “burking” or suppression of his messages. Then The Times began to publish articles about Russia from men who had little knowledge of that country. As a result the editorial articles about Russia took on the tone, exasperating to Mr. Wilton, with which newspaper-readers became familiar in the following decades: “those who believe in the future of Russia as a free and efficient democracy will watch the vindication of the new regime with patient confidence and earnest sympathy.” (Every incident of Mr. Wilton's experience in Moscow, which Colonel Repington was sharing in London, was repeated in my own experience, and in that of other correspondents, in Berlin in 1933-1938).


The “interregnum of five months began, during which a Jewish regime was to take over from Kerensky. At this very moment his newspaper lost “confidence” in Mr. Wilton. Why? The explanation emerges. The Official History of The Times says, “It was not happy for Wilton that one of his messages … should spread to Zionist circles, and even into the Foreign Office, the idea that he was an anti-semite.”


“Zionist circles,” the reader will observe; not even “Communist circles”; here the working partnership becomes plain. Why should “Zionists” (who wanted the British government to procure them “a homeland” in Palestine) be affronted because a British correspondent in Moscow reported that a Jewish regime was preparing to take over in Russia? Mr. Wilton was reporting the nature of the coming regime; this was his job. In the opinion of “Zionists,” this was “anti-semitism,” and the mere allegation was enough to destroy “confidence” in him at his head office. How, then, could he have remained “happy” and have retained “confidence.” Obviously, only by misreporting events in Russia. In effect, he was expected not to mention the determining fact of the day's news!


When I read this illuminating account I wondered by what route “Zionist circles” had spread to “the Foreign Office,” and the Foreign Office to Printing House Square the “idea” that Mr. Wilton was “an anti-semite.” The researcher, like the lonely prospector, learns to expect little for much toil, but in this case I was startled by the large nugget of truth which I found in The Times Official History thirty-five years after the event. It said that “the head of propaganda at the Foreign Office sent to the Editor a paper by one of his staff” repeating the “allegation,” (which apparently was first printed in some Zionist sheet). The Official History revealed even the identity of this assiduous “one.”


It was a young Mr. Reginald Leeper, who three decades later (as Sir Reginald) became British Ambassador in Argentina. I then looked to Who's Who for information about Mr. Leeper's career and found that his first recorded employment began (when he was twenty-nine) in 1917: “entered International Bureau, Department of Information in 1917.” Mr. Leeper's memorandum about Mr. Wilton was sent to The Times early in May 1917. Therefore, if he entered the Foreign Office on New Year's day of 1917, he had been in it just four months




when he conveyed to The Times his “allegation” about the exceptionally qualified Mr. Wilton, of seventeen years service with that paper, and the effect was immediate; the Official History says that Mr. Wilton's despatches thereafter, during the decisive period, either miscarried or “were ignored.” (The editor was the same of whom Colonel Repington complained in 1917-1918 and to whom the present writer sent his resignation in 1938 on the same basic principle of reputable journalism.)


Mr. Wilton struggled on for a time, continually protesting against the “burking” and suppression of his despatches, and then as his last service to truthful journalism put all that he knew into his book. He recognized and recorded the acts which identified the especial nature of the regime: the law against “anti-semitism,” the anti-Christian measures, the canonization of Judas Iscariot, and the Talmudic fingerprint mockingly left in the death-chamber of the Romanoffs.


The law against “anti-semitism” (which cannot be defined) was in itself a fingerprint. An illegal government, predominantly Jewish, by this measure warned the Russian masses, under pain of death, not to interest them selves in the origins of the revolution. It meant in effect that the Talmud became the law of Russia, and in the subsequent four decades this law has in effect and in growing degree been made part of the structure of the west.


The short-lived anti-Christian deeds of the French phase of the revolution reappeared in more open form. The dynamiting of churches and the installation of an anti-God museum in the Cathedral of Saint Basil were the most ostentatious indications of the nature of the regime, which Mr. Wilton indicated: “Taken according to numbers of population, the Jews represented one in ten; among the commissars that rule Bolshevist Russia they are nine in ten; if anything the proportion of Jews is still greater.” This was plain reporting, and if the report had related to “Ukrainians,” for instance, instead of “Jews,” none would have objected; the mere act of reporting a fact became the ground for secret denunciation because the fact related to Jews.


The memorial to Judas Iscariot, recorded by Mr. Wilton, was another deliberate intimation to Christendom. If the Jewish rulers merely wanted to bring about an equalitarian society in 1917, there was no relevance in bestowing a halo of heroism on a deed of AD 29; the revolution in Russia cannot be understood at all unless the symbolism of this act is comprehended.


The aspect of a Talmudic vengeance on “the heathen” was unmistakably given to the massacres of that period. In August 1918 a Jew, Kanegisser, shot a Jew, Uritsky; thereon a Jew, Peters, at the head of the Petrograd Cheka ordered “mass terror” on Russians and another Jew, Zinovieff, demanded that ten million Russians be “annihilated”; the British Government's White Book on Bolshevism (1919) records the massacre of Russian peasants which followed.


By far the most significant act was the form given to the murder of the




Romanoff family. But for Mr. Wilton this story would never have reached the world, which to this day might believe that the Czar's wife and children ended their lives naturally in “protective” custody.


The Czar acted constitutionally to the end, abdicating at the advice of his ministers (March 5, 1917). Thereafter (during the Kerensky period and its first aftermath) he was relatively well treated for a year as the prisoner at Tobolsk of a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April 1918, when the Jewish regime had gained control, he was transferred, by order from Moscow, to Ekaterinburg. The Russian guards were then withdrawn and their place inside his prison house was taken by men whose identity has never been established: The local Russians later recalled them as “Letts” (the only foreign-speaking Red soldiers known to them), but they seem to have been brought from Hungary.


The Russian commandant's place was taken by a Jew, Yankel Yurovsky (July 7). That completed a chain of Jewish captors from the top, Moscow, through the regional Urals Soviet, to his prison at Ekaterinburg (which is in the Urals). The real ruler of Russia then was the terrorist Yankel Sverdloff, president of the Moscow Cheka, who was a Jew. The Ekaterinburg Cheka was run by seven Jews, one of them Yankel Yurovsky. On July 20 the Urals Soviet announced that it had shot the Czar and sent his wife and son to “a place of security.” The Moscow Cheka issued a similar announcement, signed by Sverdloff, “approving the action of the Regional Soviet of the Urals.” At that time the entire family was dead.


The truth only became known through the chance that Ekaterinburg fell to the White armies on July 25, that Mr. Wilton accompanied them, and that their commander, General Diterichs, a famous Russian criminologist, M. Sokoloff, and Mr. Wilton uncovered the buried evidence. When the White troops withdrew Mr. Wilton brought away the proofs; they appear in his book and include many photographs.


The murders had been carried out by order from and in constant consultation with Sverdloff in Moscow; records of telephone conversations between him and the Chekists in Ekaterinburg were found. Among these was a report to him from Ekaterinburg saying “Yesterday a courier left with the documents that interest you.” This courier was the chief assassin, Yurovsky, and the investigators believed that the “documents” were the heads of the Romanoffs, as no skulls or skull-bones were found.


The deed was described by witnesses who had not been able to escape, and at least one was a participant. At midnight on July 16 Yurovsky awoke the Czar and his family, took them to a basement room and there shot them. The actual murderers were Yurovsky, his seven unidentified foreign accomplices, one Nikulin from the local Cheka, and two Russians, apparently professional gunmen employed by the Cheka. The victims were the Czar, his wife, ailing son (who was held in his father's arms as he could not walk), four daughters, Russian




doctor, manservant, cook and maid. The room was still a shambles, from the shooting and bayoneting, when M. Sokoloff and Mr. Wilton saw it, and his book includes the picture of it.


The circumstances having been determined, the investigators almost despaired of finding the bodies, or their remains; they learned that Yurovsky, before escaping the town, had boasted that “the world will never know what we did with the bodies.” However, the earth at length gave up its secret. The bodies had been taken by five lorries to a disused iron pit in the woods, cut up and burned, 150 gallons of petrol being used; one Voikoff of the Urals Cheka (a fellow-passenger of Lenin in the train from Germany) as Commissar of Supplies had supplied 400 lbs. of sulphuric acid for dissolving the bones. The ashes and fragments had been thrown down the shaft, the ice at the bottom having first been smashed so that the mass would sink; then a flooring had been lowered and fixed over the place. When this was removed the search reached its end. On top lay the corpse of a spaniel belonging to one of the princesses; below were fragments of bone and skin, a finger, and many identifiable personal belongings which had escaped destruction. A puzzling find was a small collection of nails, coins, pieces of tinfoil and the like. This looked like the contents of a schoolboy's pockets, and was; the little boy's English tutor, Mr. Sidney Gibbes, identified it. The precautions taken to dispose of the bodies and of other evidence were of the kind that only criminals of long experience in their trade could have devised; they resemble the methods used in gang warfare, during the Prohibition period, in the United States.


These discoveries, becoming known in the outer world, exposed the untruth of Sverdloff's announcement that only the Czar had been “executed” and his family sent to “a place of security.” The murderers staged a mock trial of “28 persons on the accusation of having murdered the Czar and his family.” Only eight names were published, all of them unknown in connection with the crime, and five persons were said to have been shot, who if they existed at all cannot have had any part in it. The arch-assassin, Sverdloff, was soon afterwards killed in some party dispute and thousands of innocent people died in the indiscriminate massacres which followed. Ekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlovsk to give enduring fame to his part in the symbolic deed.


The chief reason for recounting the details of the pogrom of the Romanoffs is to point to the “fingerprint” which was left in the room where it was done. One of the assassins, presumably their leader, stayed to exult and put a significant signature on the wall, which was covered with obscene or mocking inscriptions in Hebrew, Magyar and German. Among them was a couplet which deliberately related the deed to the Law of the Torah-Talmud and thus offered it to posterity as an example of the fulfilment of that law, and of Jewish vengeance as understood by the Levites. It was written in German by someone who parodied the Jewish poet, Heinrich Heine's lines on the death of Belshazzar, the imaginary potentate whose murder is portrayed in Daniel as God's punishment for an




affront offered to Judah:


Belsazar ward aber in selbiger Nacht
Von selbigen Knechten umgebracht.


The parodist, sardonically surveying the shambles, adapted these lines to what he had just done:


Belsatsar ward in selbiger Nacht
Von seinen Knechten umgebracht.


No clearer clue to motive and identity was ever left behind.


The revolution was not Russian; the eruption was brought about in Russia, but the revolution had its friends in high places everywhere. At this period (1917-1918) the student for the first time is able to establish that leading men began to give that secret support to Communism which they were already giving to its blood brother, Zionism. This happened on both sides of the fighting-line; once the secret, but overriding purposes of the war came into play the distinction between “friend” and “foe” disappeared. The Zionists, though they concentrated “irresistible pressure” on the politicians of London and Washington, long kept their headquarters in Berlin; the Communists obtained decisive support from Germany at one moment and from Germany's enemies the next.


For instance, Germany when the 1914-1918 war began started “sending back to Russia Russians of revolutionary tendencies who were prisoners here, with money and passports, in order that they may stir up trouble at home” (Ambassador Gerard in Berlin to Mr. House). Mr. Robert Wilton says the decision to Foment the revolution in Russia was formally taken at a German and Austrian General Staff meeting at Vienna late in 1915. The German Chief-of-Staff, General Ludendorff, later regretted this: “By sending Lenin to Russia our government assumed … a great responsibility. From a military point of view his journey was justified, for Russia had to be laid low; but our government should have seen to it that we were not involved in her fall.”


That, taken as an isolated case, might be a simple human error: what appeared to be a sound military move produced catastrophic political consequences not foreseen when it was made. But what explanation can be found for American and British politicians, whose foremost military and political principle should have been to sustain Russia and yet who supported the alien revolutionaries who “laid Russia low”?


I have already quoted the editorial about the revolution (“… a free and efficient democracy … the vindication of the new regime …”) which appeared in The Times of London while its experienced correspondent's despatches were being “ignored” and “confidence” withdrawn from him because the newspaper had received “an allegation” that he was “an anti-semite.” On the other side of the Atlantic the true ruler of the Republic, Mr. House was confiding to his diary similar sentiments. For him the alien revolutionaries smuggled into Russia


during wartime from the West (“this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America,” Mr. Churchill) were honest agrarian reformers: “the Bolshevists appeared to the peace-hungry and land-hungry Russians as the first leaders who made a sincere effort to satisfy their needs.”


Today all know what happened to the Russians' “land-hunger” under Bolshevism. In 1917 the Czars and their ministers for fifty years had been toiling to satisfy this “land-hunger” and by assassination had been thwarted. Apparently Mr. House was ignorant of that. When the revolution was accomplished he instructed the shadow-president: “that literally nothing be done further than that an _expression of sympathy be offered for Russia's efforts to weld herself into a virile democracy and to proffer our financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible.”[16]


The resemblance between the first phrase of this sentence and the editorial of The Times in London may be noted; powerful behind-scene groups in both capitals evidently were agreed to present the public masses with this false picture of a “virile” and “efficient” democracy in the making. The second phrase cancelled the policy initially recommended of “literally doing nothing” beyond uttering sympathetic words, by giving the order literally to do everything; for what more can be done than to give “financial, industrial and moral support in every way possible”? This was American state policy from the moment that Mr. House so instructed the president, and it exactly describes the policy pursued by President Roosevelt during the Second World War, as will be shown.


Thus the West, or powerful men in the West, began to range itself with the world-revolution against the Russians, which meant, against all men who abhorred the revolution. Not all the powerful men, or men later to become powerful, lent them selves to this hidden undertaking. At that time Mr. Winston Churchill again stated the nature of the revolution:


“Certainly I dispute the title of the Bolshevists to represent Russia … They despise such a mere commonplace as nationality. Their ideal is a worldwide proletarian revolution. The Bolsheviks robbed Russia at one stroke of two most precious things: peace and victory, the victory that was within her grasp and the peace which was her dearest desire. The Germans sent Lenin into Russia with the deliberate intention of working for the downfall of Russia … No sooner did Lenin arrive there than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne and other countries(the reader will perceive whence the “Russian” revolutionaries were




brought to Russia) and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most formidable sect in the world With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian state and nation depended. Russia was laid low. Russia had to be laid low … Her sufferings are more fearful than modern records hold and she had been robbed of her place among the great nations of the world.” (House of Commons, 5 November 1919.)


Mr. Churchill's description remains valid, particularly the phrase, “the most formidable sect in the world,” which resembles the phrase used by Bakunin in his attack on Jewish usurpation of the revolution fifty years earlier. The passage quoted from Mr. Churchill's article earlier in this chapter shows that he was equally aware of the identity of this sect.


Thus Dr. Chaim Weizmann's youthful fellow-conspirators from the Talmudic area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the start, was that between “revolutionary-Zionism” and “revolutionary-Communism,” as he shows. In his student days in Berlin, Freiburg and Geneva, he had waged many a hot debate about this point of difference, which for those who reject revolution as such is a distinction without meaning. Mr. Balfour's amanuensis, Mrs. Dugdale, portrays the blood-brothers of the revolution in argument during the years when their simultaneous triumph was in preparation:


“Lenin and Trotsky took power in the same week of November 1917 that Jewish nationalism won its recognition. Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafés in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them Russian-born … they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a most strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream.”


In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries “Russian-born” (but not Russian).


For Dr. Weizmann and his associates in London and Washington, the event in Moscow was a passing embarrassment, in one respect. They had based their demand for Palestine on the legend that “a place of refuge” must be found for Jews “persecuted in Russia” (an obvious non sequitur but good enough for “the mob”), and now there was no “persecution in Russia.” On the contrary, in Moscow a Jewish regime ruled and “anti-Semitism” was a capital offence. Where, then, were the Jews who needed “a place of refuge”? (This is evidently the reason why Mr. Robert Wilton had to be prevented from reporting the nature of the new regime in Moscow).


Rabbi Elmer Berger says, “The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews




… at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of the suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone.”


That did not deter Dr. Weizmann. At once he informed the Jews that they must not expect any respite:


“Some of our friends … are very quick in drawing conclusions as to what will happen to the Zionist movement after the Russian revolution. Now, they say, the greatest stimulus for the Zionist movement has been removed. Russian Jewry is free … Nothing can be more superficial and wrong than that. We have never built our Zionist movement on the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere. These sufferings were never the cause of Zionism. The fundamental cause of Zionism was, and is, the ineradicable striving of Jewry to have a home of its own.”


Dr. Weizmann spoke truth in untruth. It was true that the organizers of Zionism, in their private hearts, had never in reality built their movement on “the sufferings of our people in Russia or elsewhere”; they were indifferent to any suffering, Jewish or other, caused by Zionism. But they had beyond all dispute used “the sufferings of our people in Russia” as their argument in beleaguering Western politicians, who from Mr. Wilson in 1912 onward repeatedly alluded to it.


In this crucial week, the falsity of the entire contention, though revealed, made no difference, for the British Government, as Mrs. Dugdale recorded, was at length committed. Not even a pretence could be maintained that any Jews needed “a place of refuge” but Mr. Lloyd George had undertaken to conquer Palestine for “the Jews.”


The basic fallacy of the enterprise was exposed at the very instant when it was clamped like a millstone round the neck of the West. Although this irreparable flaw in its foundation must cause its ultimate collapse, like that of Sabbatai Zevi's messiahship in l666, the tragi-comedy thenceforth had to be played to its ruinous end.


But for one later event, the undertaking would have died a natural death within a few years and would survive today in the annals merely as Balfour's Folly. This event was the coming of Hitler, which for a while filled the gap left by the collapse of the legend of “persecution in Russia” and produced in some Jews a desire to go even to Palestine. For the Zionists Hitler, had he not arisen, would have needed to be created; a collapsing scheme was made by him to look almost lifelike for some time. The Hitlerist episode belongs to a later chapter in this narrative.

[15] [“But ere the morning came again, Belshazzar was slain by his own men.”] (return)

[16] It might be significant of the influences which continued to prevail in the entourage of American presidents during the next two generations that President Eisenhower in 1955, from his hospital room in Denver, sent a personal message of congratulations to the Soviet Premier, Bulganin, on the anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution, November 7. The democratic and parliamentary revolution, legitimized by the Czars abdication, occurred in March 1917; November 7 was a day on which the Bolsheviks overthrew the legitimate regime. By 1955 American presidents were habitually warning their people against the menace of “Soviet” or “Communist” (i.e., Bolshevik) aggression. (return)